GOVERNMENT OF ORMONDE, 1677-1685
[Sidenote: Revenue abuses.]
On his return to Ireland Ormonde was at once involved in revenue
difficulties. Ranelagh was allowed to collect arrears long after his
contract had expired, and the Lord Lieutenant had the worst opinion of
Sir James Shaen, who was the chief man among the new farmers. Indeed
it was amply proved that great abuses are inseparable from a system of
farming, and that a complete change would have to be made. The farmers,
said Petty, 'have done all that knaves and fools and that sharks and
beggars could do.' He was himself named as one, but Ranelagh and Shaen
managed to keep him out, and he had endless trouble with them. The
system indeed was essentially bad. The army was too weak, but small as
it was the pay was always in arrear. Ormonde saw his way to increasing
the revenue gradually, and was anxious to increase the army too, but
not until accounts could be balanced. He proposed to hold a Parliament
and obtain twelve subsidies amounting to 180,000_l._ payable in three
years. But the farmers of the revenue objected to this on the ground
that the additional burden on the taxpayer would make it impossible
for them to fulfil their contracts. The King, Coventry wrote, 'is much
more desirous of a revenue than subsidies, and would have your chief
application be to improve that to 300,000_l._ a year, and he hath
commanded me to tell your Grace you may assure them it shall all be
spent in the kingdom and none sent over hither.'[117]
[Sidenote: A Parliament contemplated.]
[Sidenote: Unceasing scramble for land.]
[Sidenote: Proposed remedial legislation.]
In June 1678 it was decided that there should be a Parliament before
Christmas, and the heads of sundry bills were sent over. The work
of the Land Settlement was incomplete, and there was much property
without a clear title and liable to be seized under one pretence
or another. Borrowing an expression from Temple, Essex, who also
desired to hold a Parliament, declared that the lands of Ireland had
been 'a mere scramble,' that the minds of all men were consequently
disturbed, English settlers frightened away, and the application of
capital prevented. The King was fully aware of this, but he added
to the confusion by making grants of concealed lands to importunate
suitors. Things were particularly bad in Connaught and Clare, where the
transplantation had made titles even more uncertain than elsewhere.
Charles was induced to withdraw some of his piratical letters, but
the courtiers were not much discouraged in their endeavours to obtain
Irish estates without paying for them. Ormonde now had a Bill prepared
to put an end to this state of things, but there was great opposition
to it on the ground that it would confirm intruders who had entered on
lands to which they had no right. It was proposed to have a commission
lasting five years for the confirmation of titles, but it was feared
that this would expose all alike to the danger of having to take out
new patents. A Bill of Oblivion was also under consideration, by which
malicious prosecution would be prevented for offences of very old date,
but it was not likely that this would pass easily in a legislature
where the Adventurers and soldiers commanded a majority. Old arrears of
taxation were also to be wiped out. It was further proposed to modify
the intolerable burden of the hearth-money, the collectors having power
to seize the poor cabin-holder's bed and the pot in which he boiled his
potatoes. The loss of revenue was to be made up by increased licensing
and excise duties. But all these plans were destined to come to
nothing, for on September 28 Oates and Tonge appeared before the Privy
Council.[118]
[Sidenote: The Popish Plot.]
[Sidenote: Alarmist measures.]
According to the first informers Ormonde was to be murdered as well
as the King. The Protestants were to be massacred as in 1641, and
Ireland taken charge of by a papal nuncio with the assistance of Louis
XIV. A little later the extreme Protestants were denouncing the Lord
Lieutenant as favourable to the plot. He hardly knew what to make of
the news, and even Coventry was puzzled for a time. Orders of the most
stringent kind were soon sent from England, and there was nothing to
do but to obey them. The English Government were assured not only
that Ormonde was to be killed through Peter Talbot's contrivance, but
that the nuncio had been already sent, and also 40,000 black bills to
arm the Irish. Ormonde was at Kilkenny when he received Southwell's
letter with a report of the first day's proceedings at the English
Privy Council. 'I have the honour,' he said, 'to be singly named with
the King. Who may come in after I know not, but sure His Majesty was
to be better attended than by me alone.... I hope I shall rather go
alone than in the company they designed me; though it be the best in
the world.' On his return to Dublin he found Archbishop Talbot already
in close custody. 'Peter Walsh,' he wrote, 'is able to say something
of Peter Talbot's threats against my life, but I would not have him
called to testify anything without his own free consent.' Officers and
soldiers were recalled to quarters, and the oath of supremacy ordered
to be strictly enforced. Popish residents for twelve months in garrison
towns were not disturbed, but strict rules were made against fresh
ones coming in, and in the cases of Drogheda, Cork, Wexford, Limerick,
Waterford, Youghal, and Galway, fairs and markets were to be held
outside the walls. Roman Catholics were forbidden to keep arms without
licence, and their dignitaries as well as all Jesuits and regulars were
ordered to leave the kingdom. As usual in former cases, the latter
order was very imperfectly obeyed, and three months later a reward
was offered for apprehension of the most important ecclesiastics--ten
pounds for a bishop or Jesuit, and five pounds for any of the
others.[119]
[Sidenote: Ormonde accused of favouring the Papists.]
William Ryan, superior of the Jesuits, was apprehended, but there was
nothing material against him and he was put on board a ship bound for
foreign parts. Orders came from England to arrest Lord Mountgarret, but
he was bedridden, and that was considered to be imprisonment enough.
His son Richard, a foolish young man with a sensible wife, was arrested
and so was Colonel Richard Talbot, but the latter was allowed to go
abroad as his health suffered from confinement. No evidence of any plot
was discovered, but anonymous letters were scattered about the streets
of Dublin professing to give information of a conspiracy against
Ormonde's life, and a reward of 200_l._ was offered by proclamation for
a full discovery. In the meantime he was accused in London of treating
the Protestants badly, and Anglesey in his character of candid friend
carefully related all that he heard. One charge was that the Lord
Lieutenant had given twenty-one days to the Papists for the surrender
of their arms, thus warning them to hide all weapons, 'whereas in 1663
the poor English were searched by surprises and their arms taken away
and not restored to this day.' To this the answer was easy, that the
Roman Catholics, being fifteen to one, could not be quickly disarmed,
and that firearms concealed in damp cellars would soon be very
harmless. As to the plot of 1663, it was the work of persons who were
Protestants only in so far that they did not call themselves Papists,
but who were as ready to upset governments and murder kings as any
disciple of Suarez. He was accused of neglecting the safety of Dublin
and of keeping the powder carelessly in a dangerous place, but he
showed that the garrison was sufficient, that the magazine was where he
found it, and that there was no other available building. As to having
Papist soldiers in Ireland, they were sent there by the King, who had
recalled them from the French service, and he wished them away 'but
not in France lest we should have them here too soon again.' The last
article of accusation mentioned by Anglesey was that Lord Mayor Ward
was a dull fool, but to this the Lord Lieutenant had a full answer:
'He had wit enough to get to be rich and an alderman, and I think by
those steps men get to be Lord Mayors. If I could have foreseen the
plot I would have interposed for an abler politician.' Anglesey made
great professions of friendship, but neither Ormonde nor Ossory trusted
him.[120]
[Sidenote: Ormonde and Orrery.]
Students of Irish history have to guard themselves against seeing
things too exclusively through Ormonde's eyes. He looms so large,
compared with other Irish or Anglo-Irishmen of his day, that there is
some danger of being unjust to others. But Burnet was not an admirer
of his, yet he stigmatises Anglesey and Orrery, his chief critics,
as 'two men of a very indifferent reputation.' Anglesey indeed, he
says, was very corrupt, 'stuck at nothing and was ashamed of nothing.'
His letter, mentioned above, was no doubt mainly founded on Orrery's
information. The ex-president, whom Ossory called the 'Charlatan of
Munster,' was a persistent alarmist who posed as the champion of the
Irish Protestants and thought the Lord Lieutenant altogether too
favourable to the Roman Catholics. A French invasion was, in his view,
a thing to be daily expected, and the preparations to oppose it were
quite insufficient. He was still major-general in his own province
and wished to be at the head of a great Protestant militia, about the
embodiment of which he thought the Lord Lieutenant too inactive. There
does not seem to have been any idea of a French descent on Ireland,
and after the conclusion of the peace of Nimeguen there could be no
real danger. But Orrery continued to complain of inadequate military
arrangements, and to lament that the Irish Government were blind to the
Irish ramifications of the plot. He was not satisfied with warning
statesmen in England, but circulated his complaints among courtiers and
private members of Parliament, thus aggravating the general atmosphere
of suspicion and panic. Ossory complained to the King, who merely said
that he knew Orrery for a rogue and that he would ever continue so.
No French soldiers came, and no attack on Protestants was made until
Charles II. and Ormonde were both dead and until the latter's policy
had been completely reversed. Ormonde tried to end the controversy with
his critic by one full letter, but gave it up in despair, 'his lordship
being impossible to be satisfied and of inexhaustible invention.' After
Orrery's death in October 1679, his sister, Lady Ranelagh, continued to
make mischief in Munster, but she was 'not so inventive.'[121]
[Sidenote: Shaftesbury attacks Ormonde.]
Shaftesbury used the plot for all it was worth. As to Ireland, he said,
'I am credibly informed that the papists have their arms restored, and
the Protestants are not, many of them, yet recovered from being the
suspected party. The sea-towns, as well as the inland, are full of
papists. That kingdom cannot long continue in the English hands if some
better care is not taken of it.' That this was a reflection on Ormonde
no candid reader will deny. And the speech as spoken may have been a
good deal stronger than the version published by Shaftesbury. But he
afterwards declared that his real object was to attack Lauderdale, and
that much more was said about Scotland. Ossory, however, who was an
old antagonist, took up the cudgels in what Achitophel's apologists
call a violent manner. His answer was at once printed in Holland, and
William of Orange admired it greatly. Ossory was wrong in saying that
Shaftesbury advised the stop of the Exchequer, but he said nothing
against it, and he was Lord Chancellor at the time. The most faithful
of biographers could not deny the _delenda est Carthago_ speech. But
Ossory's language, though in the main justified by facts, was not
opportune, and both Arlington and Southwell advised his father to write
in an apologetic or at least pacific strain. He did so, very much
against the grain, congratulating Shaftesbury upon becoming President
of the Council. He regretted Ossory's speech, but could not be 'much
offended at the mistake or transport of a near relation, who might
imagine I was glanced at, in which of all things in the world he knew
I was most tender in, and valued myself most upon, and I take the
liberty to believe that supposing the case your own, your lordship
would have the same indulgence for a son of yours.' This was all, he
told Southwell, he could 'obtain of himself to say.' Shaftesbury took
no notice of the letter, but he received it, and Christie found the
original among his papers nearly two hundred years later.[122]
[Sidenote: Intrigues about the viceroyalty.]
Sir William Temple's attempt to bridle the House of Commons with a
Privy Council of thirty is well known. It was to consist half of
official and half of independent members, and there was to be no
cabinet. The landed property of this body of magnates would nearly
equal that held by the Lower House in the aggregate. Barillon saw
at once that the plan would not work. The new Council was too large
for an executive and could not have the authority of a legislative
body. Having with great difficulty been induced to admit Halifax,
the King, much to Temple's disgust, brought in Shaftesbury and made
him President. The result was that a cabinet was almost immediately
formed consisting of Temple himself, Sunderland, Secretary of State;
Essex, First Lord of the Treasury; and Halifax, who was soon afterwards
made an Earl. Shaftesbury was surrounded by another little knot of
advanced exclusionists, and intrigue was the order of the day. It was
again reported that Halifax would be Lord Lieutenant. He refused the
offer, though some of his friends thought that he had been appointed.
Essex, on the contrary, was most anxious to return to Ireland, both the
emoluments and the position being to his taste. He kept up an interest
in the country by supporting Sir James Shaen and the revenue farmers
who gave Ormonde so much trouble and prevented him from having leave to
hold a Parliament. In the following year his designs on the viceroyalty
were clearly visible. 'My Lord,' said Shaftesbury, 'if you will come in
to us never trouble yourself, we will make you Lieutenant of Ireland.'
Temple calls these shameless words, but they had no direct result. It
does not appear that the King had any idea of superseding Ormonde.[123]
[Sidenote: 'The Plot' in Ireland.]
No evidence bearing upon Oates' plot had been discovered in Ireland,
but Shaftesbury did not neglect that fertile field. There was a scheme
to remodel the Irish Government without Ormonde, his place being filled
by Orrery, Conway, or Granard. That cowardly villain, Lord Howard of
Escrick, was thought of for Chancellor, and the Council was to be
filled with the most extreme men of the Protestant party. But the
King would have nothing to say to this precious plan, and it came to
naught. Under orders from England, Ormonde sought for witnesses, but
their stories did not fit in with those that had been told in London.
The first Irish case of any importance was that of Richard, Earl of
Tyrone, whose professed Protestantism was perhaps naturally doubted,
since he became a Roman Catholic at the beginning of the next reign.
He declared, however, that he was ready to sacrifice himself for the
Protestant religion in which he had brought up his two sons. He had
committed one Hubert Bourke, an attorney, for an assault upon a smith
named MacDaniel, and Bourke, being a man of bad character, was unable
to get bail. While in Waterford gaol he made charges against Tyrone,
who was summoned to Dublin and examined by the Council. Nothing of
importance appeared, but the Earl was indicted at Waterford Assizes,
in August 1679, for conspiring to bring in the French. The Grand
Jury ignored the bill, and Bourke's evidence of treasonable talks
was not believed. A further indictment in the following March had
the same fate, Chief Justice Keating presiding on both occasions.
Another informer, a Limerick gentleman named David Fitzgerald, made
similar charges against Lord Brittas and others, whom he accused of
a comprehensive scheme to massacre the Protestants and bring in the
French. Some of the accused were bailed for want of evidence, and in
other cases bills were ignored by the Limerick Grand Jury. Oates'
patrons in Parliament found it necessary to take other measures,
and the hatching of an Irish plot was entrusted to a sub-committee
consisting of Shaftesbury, Essex, Burlington, and Falconberg. A Mr.
Hetherington, apparently a person of some education, acted as agent and
stage-manager for Shaftesbury.[124]
[Sidenote: Abortive charges of treason.]
Tyrone was married to Anglesey's daughter, and an attempt was made to
implicate the latter, but it was too absurd to have any success. He
was himself confined for some time in the Gatehouse, and the Lords
declared themselves fully satisfied that there was and long had been
'a horrid and treasonable plot and conspiracy, contrived and carried
on by those of the Popish religion in Ireland for massacring the
English, and subverting the Protestant religion, and the ancient
established government of that kingdom.' They desired the concurrence
of the Commons, about which there was no difficulty, but Capel,
Hampden, and Russell were determined to involve James, and it was
added to the Lords' vote 'that the Duke of York's being a Papist, and
the expectation of his coming to the Crown, hath given the greatest
countenance and concurrence thereto as well as to the horrid Popish
Plot in this kingdom of England.' According to the Maguire precedent
Tyrone could be tried as a commoner in England, but the House preferred
to resolve unanimously that he should be impeached of high treason.
The charge came to nothing, for Parliament was dissolved a few days
later. For the same reasons the proceedings against Thomas Sheridan
were dropped, and he played an important part in Ireland during the
next reign. He was a son of Dennis Sheridan, who befriended Bedell and
others in 1641, his brother was Dean of Down and became a bishop next
year. Being imprisoned by the House of Commons on vague and almost
unintelligible charges, he sued out his Habeas Corpus, and when other
judges shirked the task Baron Weston had the courage to grant it. The
impeachment of Weston had also been voted for something he said at the
Kingston Assizes. Sheridan told the House that he had defended the
Protestant faith against the Jesuits and against friars of every order,
that he had communicated yearly since he was seventeen, and that he had
taken the oath of supremacy eleven times.[125]
[Sidenote: Spies and false witnesses.]
[Sidenote: Oliver Plunket accused.]
To expose once more the perjuries of Oates and his imitators is but
to slay the slain. Charles never believed in the plot, but he took no
steps to check the panic, and there was a golden time for spies and
informers. On returning from Kilkenny in October 1679, Ormonde found
Archbishop Talbot a close prisoner in Dublin Castle. He had been long
living openly and unmolested in his brother Richard's house. Archbishop
Plunket had been quiet in his province since the departure of Essex,
but came to Dublin in November 1679 to attend the deathbed of his
relative, the aged Bishop of Meath. A few days later he was arrested
by a party to whom Hetherington acted as guide. For a few weeks his
imprisonment was close, but there was nothing against him, and the
rule was soon relaxed. He was a prisoner only because he had not
left Ireland under the late proclamation, but a case of high treason
was gradually trumped up. The witnesses were instructed in London,
and Ormonde, rejecting their application for a postponement, had the
venue laid at Dundalk, where both they and the prisoner were known.
The result was that no evidence was offered and no Bill found. This
was in July, and the case was then adjourned to Dublin, where the
witnesses were in less danger of being arrested as thieves and Tories.
The Archbishop petitioned that he might be tried by a Louth jury, for
even a jury of Protestants who knew him and his accusers were not to
be feared. Before this point was finally settled, orders came that he
should be sent to London for trial, and he was lodged in Newgate before
the end of October 1680. Neither Ormonde nor his son Arran thought the
witnesses deserving of credit, but the latter foresaw that they would
be believed in England and that the Archbishop's fate was certain.[126]
[Sidenote: Plunket sent to England for trial.]
Ormonde thought that the evidence against Plunket was strong enough
if uncontradicted to justify his being sent for trial. But it is not
easy to reconcile the statements of liars, and the Westminster Grand
Jury ignored the Bill. The foreman, who was a zealous Protestant,
told Burnet that the witnesses evidently contradicted each other, and
when we consider their characters it is hard to see how they could
be believed under any circumstances. John MacMoyer and Hugh Duffy
were Franciscans of bad reputation--who consorted with the Tories and
were suspended by the Archbishop. Edmund Murphy, the parish priest
of Killevy, was also implicated in the prevailing brigandage, and
the respect due to him may be measured by his sworn admission that
it was indifferent to him whether he was a Protestant or a Priest.
Another witness was Henry O'Neill, who was hanged at Mullingar for
robbery a few months later, having fully confessed his perjuries,
which were chiefly instigated by John MacLane, a suspended priest,
who had also been one of the witnesses and was then in prison on a
charge of robbery. Henry O'Neill's son Neill also appeared against the
Archbishop. Other witnesses were Florence Wyer, related to MacMoyer;
Owen Murphy, who did not pretend to know anything; John Moyer, who
retailed gossip gathered in Italy and Spain; and one Hanlet or Hanlon,
who did much the same. These nine men, carefully selected out of a host
of informers, swore away Plunket's life with the entire approval of
three judges and of a deluded public.[127]
[Sidenote: A true bill found.]
[Sidenote: Nature of the evidence.]
The witnesses having been better drilled, a True Bill for High Treason
was eventually found, and on May 3 the Archbishop was arraigned at the
bar of the King's Bench. He was told that the abortive proceedings
in Ireland had not led to a trial, and that he might therefore be
legally tried in England for treason committed beyond channel. There
were precedents for this, and it is only necessary to mention the case
of Lord Maguire in 1645. Plunket then asked time to get his evidence
from Ireland, and the trial was fixed for June 8, five weeks off. This
seems a liberal interval, but in reality it was wholly insufficient,
for the Archbishop had hardly any money and expeditious travelling
was expensive. Moreover, the officials in Ireland would not give
copies of necessary records without an actual order of the Court. 'The
servants,' he said, 'that I sent hence and took shipping for Ireland
were two days at sea and came back again, and from thence were forced
to go to Holyhead and from Holyhead, in going to Dublin, they were
thirteen or fourteen days, the winds were so contrary, and then my
servants went about to go into the counties of Armagh and Derry.'
Even willing witnesses, being Roman Catholics, were afraid to start
without passports. The prisoner only asked for an adjournment till the
21st, when he was satisfied to be tried whether they had arrived or
not. Some of them had got as far as Coventry on the day of the trial,
but he was told that he had already had an extraordinary allowance
of time and that the fears and hesitations of Irish witnesses were
beyond the control of the Court. The keynote was struck by Sawyer
the Attorney-General: 'May it please your Lordship and you gentlemen
of the Jury, the character this gentleman bears as Primate under a
foreign and usurped jurisdiction will be a great inducement to you
to give credit to that evidence we shall produce before you.' Wyer
was the first witness, and he showed that Plunket received money and
exercised jurisdiction among the clergy, but failed to connect him,
except through the loosest hearsay, with any plot. There had been
intrigues with France in 1667 following upon the disappointment of the
Irish after the Act of Settlement, and there was an attempt to make
out that the conspiracy had gone on ever since and that the Archbishop
was at the head of it, the object being to further a French descent
at Carlingford. In Wyer's evidence, and in that of other witnesses,
papers were frequently referred to, and MacMoyer produced two, of which
one purported to be a translation from a copy made at Capranica, near
Rome, five years before, but which the Archbishop said was an absolute
forgery. The other was a copy in Plunket's own hand of statutes, as
they were called, concerning clerical contributions from Ireland to
Rome. Both documents were confessedly stolen out of a packet addressed
to the Secretary of Propaganda, and the original had been altered by
interpolating a figure. Edmund Murphy, who took credit for being one of
the first discoverers of the plot, but was now an unwilling witness,
tried to avoid repeating what he had sworn before the Grand Jury, and
said he had forgotten it. He hesitated and prevaricated, though pressed
by the Court, and in the end he was committed. When the evidence for
the Crown was concluded, a person in Court, whose name is not given,
handed Plunket a slip of paper with the names of three persons who
had received subpoenas. David Fitzgerald, who might have helped him
if he had had the courage to appear, did not answer his name, nor did
Eustace Comyn, whose 'mad narrative,' as Ormonde called it, was an
important element in the mass of hearsay and falsehood. The third was
Paul Gormar, who said he had never heard anything against Plunket, and
believed he had done more good than harm in Ireland.[128]
[Sidenote: Unfairness of the trial.]
[Sidenote: Execution of Plunket.]
According to the barbarous practice of the age Plunket was not allowed
counsel, and had to fight his battle alone before hostile judges,
against Sawyer, Jeffreys, Finch, and Maynard. His witnesses did not
arrive in time. He did not deny that he had exercised the jurisdiction
of a popish Primate to the full, but as to the French invasion it was
'all plain Romance--I never had any communication with any French
minister, cardinal, nor other.' As to his plan for having 70,000 men to
welcome the French at Carlingford, a glance at the map of Ireland would
show that it was a most unsuitable place for a descent. He might be
convicted of a præmunire under the Act of Elizabeth, but as to treason
he was quite innocent, 'as you will hear in time, and my character you
may receive from my Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Archbishop Boyle), my
Lord Berkeley, my Lord Essex, and the Duke of Ormonde.' According to
Pemberton there could not be a greater crime against God than trying
to propagate the religion of Rome, that, he said, 'was the bottom of
your treason.' The chief justice prided himself on the eminent fairness
of a trial in which he had constantly leaned against the prisoner. He
had had five weeks to prepare his case, and it was no concern of the
Court if that time was insufficient or if a priest educated abroad was
ignorant of the formalities necessary to obtain copies of records. On
the scaffold at Tyburn Plunket repeated his protestations of innocence.
He was executed on the same day as Fitzharris. The credulity of the
public was, however, nearly exhausted.[129]
[Sidenote: Character of the witnesses.]
[Sidenote: Ormonde's estimate of the evidence.]
According to what Echard believed to be unquestionable authority, Essex
told the King that the charges against Plunket could not be true, and
that Charles said the Earl might have saved him by saying as much at
the trial, but that he himself dared not pardon him. Burnet seems to
admit the royal plea as to Coleman because 'the tide went so high.' But
two and a half years later it had much subsided, and there was little
to be afraid of after the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament. At the
time of Plunket's trial Hetherington, who had contrived his arrest,
was in prison for seditious speeches. A cloud of Irish witnesses
continued to obscure the truth, and the weapon which Shaftesbury
had sharpened was soon turned against him. David Fitzgerald shifted
with the tide, and from being an informer became conspicuous against
the plot, and declared his intention to 'break Shaftesbury's knot.'
He said he could get forty Irishmen for 40_l._ to swear whatever he
wished, and that Hetherington and the other witnesses were all rogues,
thieves, gaolbreakers, and turbulent persons. Soon after the judicial
murder of Plunket Ormonde began an action of _scandalum magnatum_
against Hetherington, who was bailed by Richard Rumbold, the Rye House
conspirator. The evidence at the trial was strong and the defence weak,
so that a substantial Surrey jury found a verdict without leaving the
Court. The damages were assessed at 10,000_l._, though Ormonde had
only asked for 1000_l._, and Hetherington went to prison in default of
payment. Shaftesbury had already died in exile, and the Irish witnesses
were no longer paid or countenanced. Ormonde had long before said they
were all perjurers who 'went out of Ireland with bad English and worse
clothes and returned well bred gentlemen, well caronated, periwigged
and clothed. Brogues and leather straps are converted to fashionable
shoes and glittering buckles, which next to the zeal tories, thieves,
and friars have for the Protestant religion, is a main inducement to
bring in a shoal of informers.... The worst is they are so miserably
poor that we are fain to give them some allowance; and they find it
more honourable and safe to be the King's evidence than a cowstealer,
though that be their natural profession.[130]
[Sidenote: Castlehaven's Memoirs.]
[Sidenote: Anglesey answers him.]
In 1680, about the time of Sir Miles Stapleton's acquittal at York,
but before the trial of Lord Stafford, Castlehaven contributed to
the general confusion by publishing his memoirs. As a Roman Catholic
royalist with a good personal record for courage and honourable
conduct, he had not been molested, but his little book gave great
offence to those who were interested in the parliamentary settlement
of Ireland. Anglesey lost no time in answering Castlehaven, whom he
calls 'an enemy as keen as generous,' condemning the whole conduct of
the late war and asserting that the 'Irish did the English more hurt
and advantaged themselves more by the cessation and two first peaces
than ever they did or could do by force after the first massacre.'
This was to reflect on Charles I., who had ordered the truce of 1643
and the peace of 1646, and upon Charles II., who had confirmed the
peace of 1649. As to the Irish, they were all guilty of treason and
liable to forfeiture, their grievances being dismissed as 'crocodile
tears and groundless complaints.' Ormonde, whose relations were all
Roman Catholics, had helped them, but was himself a great gainer by the
confiscations, and so were Arlington and the Duke of York. The King did
not at first take the trouble to read Anglesey's pamphlet, but he let
it be known that he thought an answer was required. Ormonde hesitated
about a printed controversy with 'a man I have seen detected in public
of misinformation and mean artifices for sordid sums and yet never
blush at the matter, but appear the next day as brisk and confident
as his favourite Thornhill, when convicted of forgery in an open full
court.' A year later, after the Oxford dissolution, he saw less reason
for caution, and published a letter in which he says he had at first
supposed Anglesey's production to be that of a suborned libeller. It
was reported that his opponent was writing a regular history, and
he was ready to help him with documents contradicting his endless
misstatements. As for the present instalment he supposed it would be
allowed to die after it had 'performed its duty in coffee-houses.'
Anglesey printed and circulated an answer, asking for particulars
and threatening revelations, especially as to Ormonde's peaces with
the Irish. He employed Edmund Borlase to write a second answer to
Castlehaven, condemning the peaces and reflecting on Ormonde's conduct
throughout the Civil Wars.[131]
[Sidenote: Anglesey is turned out of office.]
When Ormonde returned to London in May he found the controversy raised
by Anglesey raging, and a general expectation that his antagonist
should be fully answered, if not by him, at least by an inspired
writer. By this time the King had Anglesey's pamphlet at his fingers'
ends, talked of it to all about him, and fully justified Ormonde's
conduct as to the first truce and two subsequent peaces with the Irish.
In his application to the King and Council Ormonde said he had been
in constant intercourse with his assailant for twenty years without
hearing of the accusations now made, which were evidently timed to suit
the prevailing atmosphere of suspicion. Anglesey's knowledge of Ireland
could not be denied, and 'his pretended candour and impartiality'
might make people believe him. The accuser now became the accused, and
he was carried before the Council in a fit of gout. Finding little
disposition to favour him, he boldly denied their authority to try a
peer for pretended libelling, and demanded an impartial jury. Charles's
answer was to deprive him of the Privy Seal and give it to Halifax,
whose services against the Exclusion Bill were thus in some degree
rewarded.[132]
[Sidenote: Irish outlaws. Redmond O'Hanlon.]
Brigandage in one form or other had annoyed all governors for
centuries. As the tribal system yielded gradually and grudgingly
before English law, there was never any lack of discontented men who
would fight but who would not work. The 'swordsmen' whom Chichester
strove to employ in foreign wars became 'tories' later, and after that
'rapparees,' when the older title had been assigned to an English
party. The most famous leader of these outlaws was Redmond O'Hanlon,
an educated gentleman who had lost his property through the operation
of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. He had been abroad, and
his exploits were chronicled in France as those of Count Hanlon. For
many years he kept great part of Ulster in terror, many murders being
charged against him. He sometimes retired to Connaught, and even
ventured upon raids in the south. His chief place of abode was in the
mountains to the north of Dundalk. From the ranks of the Tories came
many of the witnesses for the plot, and spies retained for one purpose
could often be used for another. At the end of 1680 there was a reward
of 200_l._ for Redmond's head and 100_l._ for his brother Loughlin's.
Redmond's bitter enemy was Edmund Murphy of Killevy, who had to pay
him regular tribute, and it may be that he put Ormonde on the scent.
The Lord Lieutenant gave a special commission to Lieutenant William
Lucas, who by a judicious use of threats and money procured the death
of Redmond in the following April and of Loughlin a little later.
Sir Francis Brewster, when reporting the death of Redmond O'Hanlon,
had to go back to the fifteenth century for a parallel--'considering
the circumstances he lay under and the time he continued, he did in
my opinion things more to be admired [that is, wondered at] than
Scanderbeg himself.'[133]
[Sidenote: Southern Tories. Richard Power.]
The destruction of the O'Hanlons did not put an end to Ulster
brigandage, and Captain Hamilton, who was indefatigable against the
outlaws, earned the title of Tory Will. In Leinster the O'Brennans,
who had lost most of their land in Strafford's time, were the most
troublesome, and in Munster Richard Power was the chief offender. Hugh
Anderton, one of Ormonde's chaplains, was attacked while reading the
burial service in his own parish of Kilmallock, and he died of his
wounds. There were riots in Tipperary, and the O'Brennans were bold
enough to enter and rob Kilkenny Castle which the Lords Justices had
omitted to watch. Primate Boyle said 'Power is an absolute ubiquitous,
and tarries in no place long enough to be discovered and taken. He is
sometimes in the county of Waterford and sometimes in Kilkenny, and
immediately after we hear of his pranks in the county of Limerick and
in Kerry and Cork.' At last a spy earned the fifty guineas which was
his share of the price placed upon Power's head. He was surrounded by
soldiers in a house near Charleville and made a desperate resistance.
As he refused quarter, the officer in command ordered the building to
be set on fire. Power yielded rather than be burned to death. He was
brought out badly wounded, and hanged at Clonmel three weeks later,
'dying very magnanimously by the help of three bottles of sack, which
he took that morning for his morning's draught.'[134]
[Sidenote: Renewed attack on the Settlement.]
[Sidenote: A Court of Grace established,]
[Sidenote: which effects very little.]
Ormonde was in England from the end of April 1682 until August 1684,
leaving his son Arran as Deputy, who did very well but without
rivalling his much lamented brother. There were two quiet years in
Ireland, but for the trouble given by the Tories. Yet sufferers by the
Act of Settlement had not been silenced, and it was thought possible
at Court to make peace by confirming the titles of men in possession
on payment of fines, out of which some compensation might be given to
those who had just claims but for whom there was no available land.
Ormonde's brother-in-law, Colonel John Fitzpatrick, who was one of
the more fortunate Recusants, favoured the new plan, and a commission
was issued in March 1684 to the Chief Governor, the Chancellor, the
heads of the Treasury, and several of the judges, under which a
Court of Grace was established. It did not sit until June, and was
then occupied by disputes about fees which were to be reduced to the
detriment of existing officials. The terms of the Commission were so
wide that all patents had to pass that way. Richard Talbot was no doubt
favourable, for he was at this time urging his co-religionists to
moderation. Fitzpatrick had already been under the lash of the House
of Commons, and the Court of Grace was evidently disliked by the
extreme Protestant party, who were against anything tending to modify
the operation of the Act of Explanation. It was believed that some of
the fees were to go to the Duchess of Portsmouth. Anglesey attacked the
Commission violently as soon as its provisions were known and before he
had seen the text. He said it would only enrich lawyers and officials,
who were too well off already, and the wrongdoers, who had for years
been holding lands to which they had no title. The Court of Grace had
not time to do much, for the Commission expired with Charles II., and
three weeks after his death it was known that it would not be renewed.
Talbot, who then became Earl of Tyrconnel, no doubt saw his way to
something much more drastic.[135]
In spite of commercial restraints Ireland had prospered under Charles
II. The revenue doubled in twenty years. At first money had to be sent
from England, but later there was a surplus, which the King promised
should be spent in the country. Yet it was often not so spent, though
the soldiers' pay might be in arrear. Charles's leniency towards
Ranelagh may be explained by His Majesty having received money without
accounting for it publicly. The system of farming was at last condemned
after much unseemly wrangling between Ranelagh and Sir James Shaen,
which some well-informed people thought a sham. The former had been
Vice-Treasurer since 1674, and was dismissed in 1682, but in spite of
his huge defalcations he was well compensated for loss of office. The
collection of the taxes was handed over to Revenue Commissioners, with
Lord Longford, a skilled financier, at their head.[136]
[Sidenote: Last days of Charles II.]
[Sidenote: The policy of the next reign foreshadowed.]
[Sidenote: Recall of Ormonde.]
In May 1682 Ormonde reached London, and the Duke of York finally
came back from Scotland. From that until the end of the reign the
heir-presumptive exerted a great though not always a paramount
influence. The Rye House plot and other events connected with it
had nothing to say to Ireland, so that when Ormonde returned to his
government in August 1684 he had no reason to expect any change, and
he left Halifax and Rochester to struggle for supremacy. Before the
month was out the former had succeeded in driving his rival from the
Treasury and seeing him 'kicked upstairs' to the presidency of the
Council. Rochester hardly attempted to hide his vexation in writing
to Ormonde: 'The King hath given me a great deal of ease and a great
deal of honour.' In the meantime, James was planning the new policy for
Ireland which he was so soon and so unexpectedly enabled to carry out.
The first thing was to separate the command of the army from the Lord
Lieutenancy. Ormonde could hardly be deprived of privileges which he
had always enjoyed, and the scheme was kept secret until his back was
turned. Sunderland proposed to get rid of Rochester by sending him to
Ireland; and Richard Talbot was above all things anxious to have Roman
Catholic officers appointed. The King was induced to write a letter
saying that it was absolutely necessary for his service to make great
changes in Ireland, both civil and military. This would involve parting
with some office-holders whom Ormonde had appointed. Rochester had,
therefore, been chosen to succeed him whose ability was not doubtful
and who would be agreeable to him on account of near connection by
marriage. He might choose his own way of surrendering office, and live
either in England or Ireland. If he preferred the latter, Charles would
see that proper respect was paid him, and would in any event treat him
with unabated confidence. It was Ormonde's principle to honour and obey
the King, but in writing to his intimate friend Southwell he confessed
to being out of countenance, though at his age he was not sorry to be
relieved. And when he heard that the restrictions on his successor were
so great as to deny him power to appoint a single subaltern, then he
admitted it would have been very hard for him to fill the place, though
duty would not let him 'refuse to serve the King upon any terms or
in any station. From this difficulty, I thank God and the King, I am
delivered.'[137]
[Sidenote: Death of Charles II.]
Rochester was not destined to cross St. George's Channel on this
occasion. Charles II. died on February 6, 1685. Within six weeks
Halifax lost the Privy Seal, though he had been the chief instrument
in securing James's succession, and Rochester became Lord Treasurer.
Sunderland, who had voted for the Exclusion Bill and whose intrigues
reached everywhere, remained a Secretary of State. A few days later the
Chancellor-archbishop Boyle and Lord Granard were made Lords Justices
by patent to take effect as soon as it suited Ormonde's convenience to
swear them in. This was done on March 20, and by the end of the month
he was in London, having been met on the road by an unprecedented
number of coaches. St. James's Square was crowded with people who had
no coaches, but who showed their admiration of his character by their
shouts. In the month following the late King's death there had been
more robberies in Ireland than during a whole year before, the Tories
expecting that there would be no circuits and perhaps pardons at the
coronation.[138]
FOOTNOTES:
[117] Fitzmaurice's _Life of Petty_, p. 174. H. Coventry to Ormonde,
June 18, 1678, _Ormonde Papers_, N.S. Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 469-473.
'The Earl of Essex told me that he knew the King did often take money
into his privy purse to defraud his exchequer,' Burnet, i. 398.
[118] Essex to Harbord, March 28, 1674, _Essex Papers_. H. Coventry to
Ormonde, June 18, 1678, _Ormonde Papers_, N.S. Longford to Ormonde,
_ib._ August 24, September 14, and October 5, Carte's _Ormonde_, ii.
472.
[119] A brief account of the conspiracy, &c., _Ormonde Papers_, N.S.,
iv. 181, calendared at August 13, 1678, but the date must be considered
doubtful. Southwell to Ormonde, September 28, _ib._ p. 454. Ormonde to
Lord Chancellor Boyle, October 7, _ib._ Narrative of proceedings of
Lord Lieutenant from October 7, 1678, to April 5, 1679, transmitted to
Coventry, _Ormonde Papers_, 1st series, ii. 254. Ormonde to Southwell,
October 5, _ib._, and the proclamations, _ib._ pp. 350-359. Account of
the public affairs in Ireland since the discovery of the late plot,
London, 1679 (after April 7).
[120] Anglesey to Ormonde, November 23, 1678, and the answer, November
29, which was considered satisfactory, _Ormonde Papers_, N.S. Ossory to
Ormonde, October 23 and December 10, _ib._
[121] Among the many letters in _Ormonde Papers_, vol. iv., the
following are the most important: Ossory to Ormonde, November 26, 1678;
Ormonde to Burlington, December 21; Ormonde to Orrery, January 11,
1678-9 (unfinished, with the above quotation endorsed); Burlington to
Ormonde, January 10; Orrery to Lord Chancellor Boyle, January 28, and
the answer March 8. A correspondent of Ormonde, writing from London,
May 13, 1679, says, 'Lady Ranelagh defames your Grace more maliciously
than ever, and there have been and daily are frequent meetings, both
public and private, for that purpose.'
[122] Shaftesbury's speech, March 25, 1679, is in his _Life_ by
Christie, ii. appx. vi., and Ormonde's letter to him, May 25, _ib._
ii. 337. Ossory's speech and William of Orange's comments (French) in
Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. appx. 93 and 94. Ormonde to Southwell, May 24
and November 8, _Ormonde Papers_, 1st series, ii. 288, 293. Southwell
to Ormonde, _ib._, N.S., April 22, iv. 505.
[123] 'Monsieur Barillon said it 'was making _des Etats_ and not _des
conseils_,' Temple's _Memoirs_, 3rd part. Many details in Courtenay's
_Life of Temple_, chap. xxiv. See the remarks in the second chapter of
Macaulay's _History_. Henry Savile to Halifax, May 17, 1679, in _Savile
Correspondence_. Halifax favoured the reappointment of Essex in 1679,
Burnet, i. 470. Later on Shaftesbury accused him of bargaining with the
Court to make him Lord Lieutenant, _ib._ 537.
[124] _Lords Journals_, xiii. 643. _Hist. MSS. Commission_, xi. 2.
[125] Grey's _Debates_, December 9, 10, and 15, January 6 and 7,
1680-1. Burnet's _Own Times_, i. 485. An independent version of the
January debates in _H.M.C._, 12th Report, appx. ix. 106.
[126] Plunket's account of the proceedings at Dundalk and afterwards
in Cardinal Moran's _Life_ of him, p. 289. Arran to Ormonde, November
6, 1680, _Ormonde Papers_, v. 477, and April 16, 1681, _ib._ vi. 36.
_The present state and condition of Ireland_, but more especially of
the province of Ulster humbly represented to the kingdom of England by
Edmund Murphy secular priest and titular chanter of Armagh, and one of
the first discoverers of the Irish Plot, London, 1681.
[127] Francis Gwyn to Ormonde, February 12, 1680-1, _Ormonde Papers_,
v. 580. Ormonde to Arran, February 19, _ib._ 586. Burnet's _Own Times_,
i. 502. Moran's _Life of Plunket_, chaps. xxv. and xxvi. Writing to
Sir John Malet, May 13, 1679, Orrery says Murphy had deposed very
circumstantially at Dublin, but was said to be a man of crazed brain
and therefore not much to be believed, _Additional MSS._ 32095, f. 186.
[128] State Trials, iii. 293.
[129] State Trials, _ut sup._ For the opinion of Essex and the King's
comments on it, see the notes to Airy's edition of Burnet, ii. 292,
and Burnet's own opinion. Luttrell does not seem to have had much
misgiving, for he considered the charge fully proved and 'the defence
very weak, alleging only that he wanted his witnesses and papers which
were in Ireland,' June 9 and July 1, 1681. _Hibernia Dominicana_, p.
130.
[130] _The Irish evidence convicted_ by their own oaths by W.
Hetherington, London, 1682. Power of attorney from Ormonde, September
1, 1681, _Ormonde Papers_, vi. 306; to Arran, June 26, 1683, _ib._ vii.
52. Luttrell, March 26 and May 3, 1683. Newsletter to Lady Weymouth,
May 3, _Additional MSS._, 32095, f. 212. Ormonde to Arran, November 17,
1681, in appx. to Carte's _Ormonde_, no. 126, contains the curious word
'caronated.' It appears in the original MS., but the late Sir James
Murray was unable to pronounce on the etymology. Writing to Ormonde on
May 20, 1682, Arran says, nine of the King's witnesses petitioned for
not less than 20_l._ apiece. He gave 40_l._ among them, 'part to defray
their charge at the inn where they lay, the rest to carry them home,
where I doubt not but they will follow their other trade and come to
the gallows that way.'--_Ormonde Papers_, vi. 365.
[131] Burnet, who was not prejudiced in Ormonde's favour, says (i. 97)
Anglesey 'stuck at nothing and was ashamed of nothing,' that he was
loved and trusted by no man of any party, had no regard for truth or
justice, sold everything and 'himself so often that at last the price
fell so low that he grew useless.' Essex thought he intrigued against
him, and Lord Mountjoy said he had no friends. Correspondence in the
_Ormonde Papers_, beginning with Lord Burlington's letter of October
12, 1680, and Ormonde's of February 19 following. Mountjoy's narrative
in 2nd Report of _Hist. MSS. Commission_, p. 213. _Athenæ Oxonienses_
(Bliss), iv. 181. I have used the Dublin 1815 reprint of Castlehaven's
_Memoirs_ from the revised edition of 1684: Anglesey's letter is
appended. In the _Supplement_ to his History, ed. Foxcroft, p. 62,
Burnet says Anglesey 'often begun a speech in Parliament all one way
and (upon some secret look that wrought upon him) has changed his note
quite and concluded totally different from his beginning ... I never
knew any one man that either loved him or trusted him.'
[132] _A true account of the whole proceedings_ between his Grace James
Duke of Ormonde and the Rt. Hon. Arthur Earl of Anglesey, late Privy
Seal before the King and Council, London, 1682 (attributed to Bishop
Morley). Lord Longford to Ormonde, February 25, 1681-2, and March 28,
_Ormonde Papers_, vi. 324, 325. Foxcroft's _Life of Halifax_, i. 360.
Luttrell, August 10, 1682. Anglesey's account of the Irish Civil War is
unfortunately lost. His son told John Dunton that the MS. was in hands
which would not let it all appear, Dunton's _Conversation in Ireland_,
1699.
[133] Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 512; _Ormonde Papers_, vols. v. and vi.,
particularly Captain Charles Poyntz to Sir William Flower, May 3, 1681.
Edmund Murphy's pamphlet quoted above. Other details in Prendergast's
_Cromwellian Settlement_, 2nd edition, p. 352, and in the same writer's
_Ireland from the Restoration to the Revolution_. Notes to Hill's
_Montgomery MSS._, p. 119. Article on Redmond O'Hanlon in _Dict. of
National Biography_.
[134] Letters in vol. vii. of the _Ormonde Papers_, particularly W.
Hamilton to William Ellis, January 2, 1683-4; Primate Boyle to Ormonde,
October 3, 17, and 27, 1685; Longford to Ormonde, October 27.
[135] Arran's letters of May 27 and 30, and June 5, 1684, in _Ormonde
Papers_, vol. vii.; Anglesey to North and Halifax, _ib._ March 13;
Sir C. Wyche to Ormonde, _ib._ February 24, 1684-5. Cox's _Hibernia
Anglicana_, ii., Charles II., p. 16. _Secret Consults of the Romish
Party_, London, 1690, p. 40.
[136] Statement of Revenue for 1664, signed by Anglesey as
Vice-Treasurer, March 20, 1664-5, State Papers, _Ireland_: the total
is 153,205_l._ 19_s._ 8_d._ Abstract of Revenue for 1683 in appx. v.
to _Clarendon and Rochester Correspondence_, vol. i.: the total is
300,953_l._ 17_s._ 6_d._ _Liber Munerum Publicorum_, part ii. 133.
Among a host of letters in _Ormonde Papers_, see particularly Longford
to Ormonde, March 21, 1681-2, vi. 349, and Arran's letter with Report
on arrears following September 22, 1683, _ib._ vii. 135. See also the
article on Ranelagh in _Dict. of National Biography_.
[137] Charles II. to Ormonde, November 19, 1684, Carte's _Ormonde_
ii. appx. 128. Ormonde to Southwell, _ib._ 135 and 139. Rochester to
Ormonde, August 26, _Ormonde Papers_, vii. 266.
[138] Carte's _Ormonde_, ii. 542 _sqq._ Ormonde to Sunderland, March 6,
1684-5, in _Ormonde Papers_, vii. 266.